But other countries are aiding an improved PLA combat aircraft manufacturing capability. In 2002 a Russian source noted with some embarrassment that Shenyang J-11 fighters had a better production finish than KNAAPO-made fighters. He noted that much of Shenyang’s rapid improvement in J-11 manufacturing finish has been due to the import of modern production machinery from Russia, Japan, Sweden and even the United States.[15] For example, as of mid-2003 Sweden’s Avure Company had sold the PRC eight of its modern high-power presses to fabricate aluminum aircraft parts, three of which were going to the Shaanxi transport aircraft maker, and the Changhe and Harbin helicopter makers.[16] In addition, it appears that most Chinese aircraft manufacturers use French aircraft maker Dassault’s CATIA software that enables complex three-dimensional designs. Dassault has been selling its CATIA software in the PRC since about 1983.[17] A recent report credits computer aided design software with accelerating the building of Chengdu’s FC-1 fighter and the twin-seat version of its J-10 fighter. Design drawings for both fighters were delivered in six months, where as before the drawings for just the single-seat J-10 had required ten months.[18]v

But other countries are aiding an improved PLA combat aircraft manufacturing capability. In 2002 a Russian source noted with some embarrassment that Shenyang J-11 fighters had a better production finish than KNAAPO-made fighters. He noted that much of Shenyang’s rapid improvement in J-11 manufacturing finish has been due to the import of modern production machinery from Russia, Japan, Sweden and even the United States.[15] For example, as of mid-2003 Sweden’s Avure Company had sold the PRC eight of its modern high-power presses to fabricate aluminum aircraft parts, three of which were going to the Shaanxi transport aircraft maker, and the Changhe and Harbin helicopter makers.[16] In addition, it appears that most Chinese aircraft manufacturers use French aircraft maker Dassault’s CATIA software that enables complex three-dimensional designs. Dassault has been selling its CATIA software in the PRC since about 1983.[17] A recent report credits computer aided design software with accelerating the building of Chengdu’s FC-1 fighter and the twin-seat version of its J-10 fighter. Design drawings for both fighters were delivered in six months, where as before the drawings for just the single-seat J-10 had required ten months.[18]v

J-12 stealth figther is in wind-tunnel stage, and with CAD software aid, prototypes will be out in no time. Then, let's see how Su-30MKI competes with J-12.

However, Internet images of a Y-7 transport aircraft with a radar remarkable similar in shape to the PS-890, and then confirmation that there is an active program with a similarly shaped radar on a Y-8 transport,[76] at least serve to justify concern. If indeed the PLA did have the ERIEYE or a radar based on its technology, this would substantially improve its ability to prosecute air and naval operations against Taiwan.

looks like the chineese are more than upto standard, they are most definetely going against the stereotype of cheap reverse engineering and "home job" assembly.

Maybe people shouldn't underestimate the quality of china's production after all :unigrad

If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing.

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Why do you press harder on a remote control when you know the battery is dead?

Why does mineral water that 'has trickled through mountains for centuries' have a 'use by' date?

answer:its because the bottle makers insurance company forces them to give a date as each bottle is only covered for a certain period by the insurers. so u can drink after the date but for watever reason u wont b able 2 sue them

By 2002 reports began to emerge from Mainland sources that NRIET company had produced a new multi-mode radar for the Chengdu J-10, identified as the Type 1473. One report from late 2003, while not identifying the radar, says the J-10’s radar has a range of 150km and can track 20 targets while attacking four.[158] If true, such a radar would have nearly twice the performance of the Russian N001 on the Su-27.

By 2002 reports began to emerge from Mainland sources that NRIET company had produced a new multi-mode radar for the Chengdu J-10, identified as the Type 1473. One report from late 2003, while not identifying the radar, says the J-10’s radar has a range of 150km and can track 20 targets while attacking four.[158] If true, such a radar would have nearly twice the performance of the Russian N001 on the Su-27.

I think JF-17 should get Type-1473 radar, not some crapping Grifo-S7 or RC-400-4.

By 2002 reports began to emerge from Mainland sources that NRIET company had produced a new multi-mode radar for the Chengdu J-10, identified as the Type 1473. One report from late 2003, while not identifying the radar, says the J-10’s radar has a range of 150km and can track 20 targets while attacking four.[158] If true, such a radar would have nearly twice the performance of the Russian N001 on the Su-27.

with reports like that, i just can't understand why china is so inderestimated. I suppose china brings it on itself by maintaining secrecy about the J-10, and how everything is "uncomfirmed".

If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing.

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Why do you press harder on a remote control when you know the battery is dead?

Why does mineral water that 'has trickled through mountains for centuries' have a 'use by' date?

answer:its because the bottle makers insurance company forces them to give a date as each bottle is only covered for a certain period by the insurers. so u can drink after the date but for watever reason u wont b able 2 sue them

The quality of chinese aircraft is good,as they have now been producing aircraft for a long time, doesn't matter how bad your technology is, it will get better with practise, same in china's case.
:pkflg) :pkflg) :pkflg)

http://www.uscc.gov/...rce_systems.htmIts advertised speed of Mach 4, however, does handily exceed the speed of the R-77. At the 2002 Zhuhai Airshow, however, Louyang officials denied that the SD-10 was based on Russian components

At the 2002 Zhuhai show Louyang officials offered some observations regarding their next generation short range AAM. They noted that it would be helmet sighted, small, have a thrust-vectored engine, and use a new imaging infrared seeker now in development.[164] Louyang officials have said they have “bench tested” an imaging-infrared seeker (IIR).[165] Such seekers combine a computer library of target images to match against high resolution infrared images of the target, increasing immunity to flares or other decoys that would degrade a pure IR seeker. This missile could use technologies derived from Russian or Israeli AAMs, but South Africa may be a potential source for modern AAM technology. The new AAM described by Louyang is also similar to Denel’s state-of-the art A-DARTER AAM, which was marketed at the Zhuhai show. It appears that Louyang’s experience with foreign AAM technologies, combined with their own ingenuity, has enabled this company to begin to produce world-class short-range AAMs

in the conclusion of the article:" Finally, the 2003 MAKS shows that the Russia-China military technical nexus is alive and growing. Despite the risks to each in this relationship, both sides are also managing to derive tangible benefits. China is getting new weapon systems faster plus a great deal of new military technology, some of which it is also mastering. Russia is getting cash to keep alive its military-technical sector and in some cases, is able to remain competitive in the global arms market. For China there remains the risk of greater dependence on new Russian technology. For Russia, there is an increasing chance that China will catch up, and threaten Russian military export markets. "

in the conclusion of the article:" Finally, the 2003 MAKS shows that the Russia-China military technical nexus is alive and growing. Despite the risks to each in this relationship, both sides are also managing to derive tangible benefits. China is getting new weapon systems faster plus a great deal of new military technology, some of which it is also mastering. Russia is getting cash to keep alive its military-technical sector and in some cases, is able to remain competitive in the global arms market. For China there remains the risk of greater dependence on new Russian technology. For Russia, there is an increasing chance that China will catch up, and threaten Russian military export markets. "

Don't underestimate China. China has manned space flights, and Europe and Japan still don't have this.

Thats beacuse they dont need to. Everyone knows that if Europe or Japan decide to have a manned flight then they can do it. Its like saying that Germany and Japan dont have nukes but have the capability, sophestication, and resources to produce them.

Thats beacuse they dont need to. Everyone knows that if Europe or Japan decide to have a manned flight then they can do it. Its like saying that Germany and Japan dont have nukes but have the capability, sophestication, and resources to produce them.

This is PDF, not Chinese military forum. All of you, h177, GTO, pfpilot, airforcefan, you are all reported to the mods.

Have a nice day!

I am not sure what I did, that PAF pilot, you need to report me for, but if you can read english, this thread is related to chinese aircraft, so therefor, we won't be talking about Pakistan when it has nothing to do with it. :pkflg) :pkflg) :pkflg)

I think Hi-77 has gone off the deep end here! pagal ho gya hae yae idiot!

Guys think about it! F-16/ F-14 and F-15 wuill have RCS of 25msquared and his pappoo FC-1 has only 1m square? and we all know that FC-1 is not stealthy at all! The only thing stealthy about the FC-1 is its canted inwards intake trunking and forward fuselage! It is imposible for it to make that much of a difference! Once again guys he proves that he is full of ####!

I think Hi-77 has gone off the deep end here! pagal ho gya hae yae idiot!

Guys think about it! F-16/ F-14 and F-15 wuill have RCS of 25msquared and his pappoo FC-1 has only 1m square? and we all know that FC-1 is not stealthy at all! The only thing stealthy about the FC-1 is its canted inwards intake trunking and forward fuselage! It is imposible for it to make that much of a difference! Once again guys he proves that he is full of ####!

Looks like he is getting really delusional

Have you read the thread which i posted and still you cannot differentiate between

Read the project director interview at Pakdef.info where composites are specificallymentioned.http://www.globalsec.../china/fc-1.htmA decade later, the MiG-33 nomenclature was briefly associated with the much larger twin-engine Mig-29M. This confused history has led to observations that the "FC-1 features air inlets on the lateral sides of the fuselage rather than the ventral inlets of the MiG-33. ... the most apparent modifications to the MiG-33 design is the repositioning of the ventral fins from the engine compartment..." These supposed modifications to the mid-90s MiG-33 design actually reflect the fact that the FC-1 is an entirely difference airplane with no design relationship to the MiG-33 [MiG-29M].

"Even if the F-15 RCS is a large 25 m2, the F-22 is 0.025 m2 worst case (fighter x 0.26). "

which is given as an example. It doesn't says F-15 has 25m^2 RCS.

english samaj nahin aati bache

http://web.ics.purdu..... Aircraft.htm“The front-aspect radar cross section of an F-15 [the current USAF air superiority fighter] is about 10 sq. meters, and of that about 10 sq. meters comes from the inlets (92).” As a result, the JSF design uses serpentine inlets coated with RAM and using special inlet vanes designed to absorb radar energy in a similar fashion as the F-22 (Dornheim 99

Read the project director interview at Pakdef.info where composites are specificallymentioned.http://www.globalsec.../china/fc-1.htmA decade later, the MiG-33 nomenclature was briefly associated with the much larger twin-engine Mig-29M. This confused history has led to observations that the "FC-1 features air inlets on the lateral sides of the fuselage rather than the ventral inlets of the MiG-33. ... the most apparent modifications to the MiG-33 design is the repositioning of the ventral fins from the engine compartment..." These supposed modifications to the mid-90s MiG-33 design actually reflect the fact that the FC-1 is an entirely difference airplane with no design relationship to the MiG-33 [MiG-29M].

Dude you started this topic about how advanced Chinese manufacturing is now compared to Russia? There is no proof of that as we all know that almost all of China's frontline aurcraft frigates tanks and armour/ artilery and blah blah missiles and the whole nine yards is pretty much Russian Chaappay! Even Pfpilot knows that! Or he'll report you to the mods! :red><